|
AJ_Impy posted:That said, Jund sacrifice is a huge and obnoxious part of Standard right this second, and I'd be leery of emulating that.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2020 06:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:04 |
|
|
I think before we get so specific we should probably work out what kind of factions we want in our set (shards, wedges, guilds (ally/enemy/both?)) and how much focus we want each faction to have on its mechanic and how distinct from each other they should be - on the stronger end, something like alara or ravnica where faction = mechanic colors, and on the weaker end, tarkir or ixalan, where the mechanics show up in colors and it's not as important to be in All Of Those Colors for decks of that faction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 05:43
|
|
|
Maybe we should vote on wedges vs shards vs pairs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 07:42
|
|
|
President Ark posted:I think before we get so specific we should probably work out what kind of factions we want in our set (shards, wedges, guilds (ally/enemy/both?)) and how much focus we want each faction to have on its mechanic and how distinct from each other they should be - on the stronger end, something like alara or ravnica where faction = mechanic colors, and on the weaker end, tarkir or ixalan, where the mechanics show up in colors and it's not as important to be in All Of Those Colors for decks of that faction. I usually love wedge, but seeing as Ikoria just gave us a wedge set, I actually think that coming up with like, new wedge identities and new tri-lands and the like is sort of a mistake in the making. As a commander player I like 3 colors though, so might I suggest a return to the shards? Shards haven't been touched in a long time in a standard set iirc, and are pretty cool and deserve a return. Making it a softer shard set (like how Ikoria has been a softer wedge set) is my vote too, but not for any reasons I just think it's neat. Lack of Bear posted:Maybe we should vote on wedges vs shards vs pairs. Seconded itsmekidney fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Jul 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 07:50
|
|
|
Thirded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 07:57
|
|
|
Cool. I値l throw together a quick poll later, once I知 not phoneposting at 2 AM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 10:05
|
|
|
Don't forget all-but-one as an option.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 13:49
|
|
|
The problem with all but one is that limited can't support it. Everyone will have no reason not to try and force 5 color every draft. 4 color fixing is silly so you might as well make 5 color fixing so you have less slots devoted to basically the same card. If you don't make it strong enough, every game someone is going to sit with a card they can't play in their hand. Abilities that are not in just one color feel like they are in every color, especially if you are making common less than 4 color cards that can fit in either strategy. I don't want to end up with a set that feels like you are drafting 3x Alara Reborn. I also don't want to be fighting for cards with every other drafter because they can be played by any deck.We would have to do so much tweaking on every card to balance every archetype, which sounds awful in this thread format.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
One idea I've been playing with in the past couple of days is the idea of creating ten factions, each shard opposed by a wedge, like so:     code:
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
Anshu posted:One idea I've been playing with in the past couple of days is the idea of creating ten factions, each shard opposed by a wedge, like so: I dig it
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Seems like it would really dilute the card pool for each faction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Anshu posted:One idea I've been playing with in the past couple of days is the idea of creating ten factions, each shard opposed by a wedge, like so: I've played with the idea of Shards & wedges a few times, but yeah, I think you end up with a very diluted card pool. Especially if we go for a strong color identity like the latest Ravnica block (which beginning with new mechanics sort of implies, to me), it gets messy very fast.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
There's probably a way to work out a set that has a mix of shards and wedges and still is relatively color balanced, but I am not brain genius enough to figure out how.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
President Ark posted:There's probably a way to work out a set that has a mix of shards and wedges and still is relatively color balanced, but I am not brain genius enough to figure out how. Lots of hybrid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2020 23:46
|
|
|
I meant in the sense of, rather than a 5 wedge faction or 5 shard faction set like tarkir/alara, you do a 2/3 or 4/1 or even 6-7 factions with it still working out that the colors appear an even number of times to avoid a Scourge situation. In other words, something like Ixalan, which had a mix of two-color factions (the vampires and merfolk) and the three-color factions (the dinosaur aztecs and pirates) and it was still color balanced. (every color appeared twice) There's probably an algorithm you could use to figure this out. President Ark fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Jul 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
I'm voting for a shard set myself, it shouldn't be too hard to balance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
A shard set sounds fun to me too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
I'd be fine just doing shards as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
Also, we've already had two wedge blocks, the idea of another wedge shard that focuses on a different paradigm of the ally colours could be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2020 06:07
|
|
|
Okay, here's a poll about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2020 11:35
|
|
|
You know what's only ever had one dedicated set? Enemy pairs. Apocalypse was enemy in general, with wedges and either/both enemies cards. Ravnica has equal ally pair/enemy pair distribution, and none of the sets were pure ally pair or pure enemy pair. Eventide focused on enemy pairs and is the one dedicated set mentioned, but was pure hybrid rather than multicolor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2020 12:32
|
|
|
PMush, could you repost the results of the previous poll regarding the original mechanics?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 04:18
|
|
|
Anshu posted:PMush, could you repost the results of the previous poll regarding the original mechanics? Also tell us what mimic was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 06:03
|
|
|
itsmekidney posted:Also tell us what mimic was. Yeah, that too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 06:32
|
|
|
Yes! - Most of the responses came from people who've been playing on-and-off for a while, and about 3/4 of us submitted something ourselves. - There's a lot of variety in which format is most interesting to people (including 3 people interested in EDH/Brawl, which is neat) - The vast majority of players want to see existing non-evergreen keywords return alongside the new stuff, but want the new stuff to play a little looser. - Literally nobody who answered wants an Un-set. - Most people also want some kind of fantasy-adjacent theme, and rank either a 3 or a 4 in caring about it. - Galvanize is by far the most popular with 12 votes. - Husk and Bloodrite got 9 and 7, respectively, finishing up the podium. - Honorable mentions include Enchanters, Encore, Mirror (which I previously called Mimic because I'm smart), Monger, Twin, and Unfinished, each of which got at least 25%. Also: - Shards are the clear winner, with 64% of the vote. - There are a few people feeling tokens, but almost as many did a write-in for multiplayer. No clear consensus there yet, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 06:39
|
|
|
In that case, how about we return to running contests? We could pick a particular shard of the color wheel and submit our idea for that shard's identity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 08:01
|
|
|
I think the big issue is whether people want to make a ravnica-type set where there is no overarching theme but a instead a set of color groups each with their own minor theme, in which case we should start looking at shards, or whether we want to choose a major theme that will run through all the color groups, in which case we need to decide what it is and then see how we can make our mechanics fit into that paradigm. I personally would vote for the first one because I think it gets the most mechanics into the final set, but I think we'll do better to get that question settled before we start designing. Did the poll clear it up, or am I mistaken about this being a road block?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 09:28
|
|
|
I知 concerned we might not have enough entries, but I壇 totally be cool with a contrast where each entry is a faction with a specific shard, whatever mix of flavor and mechanics feels right. Then each shard gets individual votes, and we can tweak the flavor and setting after the fact to make it all fit together.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 12:03
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:I知 concerned we might not have enough entries, but I壇 totally be cool with a contrast where each entry is a faction with a specific shard, whatever mix of flavor and mechanics feels right. Then each shard gets individual votes, and we can tweak the flavor and setting after the fact to make it all fit together. Are you saying like an Esper contest, a Naya (momentum) contest, etc?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
That's what I meant, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 03:47
|
|
|
itsmekidney posted:Are you saying like an Esper contest, a Naya (momentum) contest, etc?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 08:21
|
|
|
itsmekidney posted:If I'm being honest, this second contest is a lot; it's essentially asking us to come up with a minimum of 5-10 cards (and an ideal 25 or so). More importantly, it's actually asking us to perform 4 incredibly important tasks for the future of the set, all in a single bound: It wants us to (1) design the set's plane, (2) design the set's story, which is going to be incredibly tied to the plane's factions, (3) establish the mechanical identities of the colors, and (4) design what sort of play-style this set primarily appeals to. I worry at the moment that this is simply too much to ask in a single run. TheCog posted:It would really suck to design 25 cards, with lore and backstory and just have it thrown out, I think. Doing all the shards at once still runs into these issues; doing things one shard at a time lets us go slower, with more time for us to get on the same page and let our ideas cross-pollinate, and build the story and everything as we go along.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
I agree with Anshu. We should just pick a shard and all submit for it and see what we get. I feel like the wind keeps getting knocked out of this thread and everyone is just waiting for a simple clear goal. I am going to make some RGW cards because I agree with itsmekidney that momentum fits in RGW. I encourage other people to do the same, then we can see what flavor and world stuff we like and move from there. Here are the momentum (it was called galvanize) cards I made from before that are in those colors to start:    If anyone really wants to sumbit for another three color combination, that is probably fine too, I just want to get going already and have some sort of cohesion. Edit: Here are some Elementals for an elemental themed RGW:    
Lack of Bear fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Jul 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
Coincidentally, I did have an idea for Momentum (I'm calling it Galvanize at the moment.) So my idea is to create a mercantile plane, I think I've talked about it before? I don't actually know what that means for most of the shards, or really for any of the shards that aren't Naya, but I was thinking that Naya could represent a sort of commoner's revolution flavored by the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, etc etc. One of the things that always irks me about a lot of fantasy works is the idea that the (non-undead) nobility are the good guys and the best guys, so this runs directly counter to that. Even though I want to include monger in the set, I like to think Naya is a little too wild to really get in on the ground floor of the silver token game. Anyway, here are my cards. I'd like to find art that isn't so blatantly Russian propaganda, but I was having a hell of a time finding it.   
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 04:36
|
|
|
Oh, I love that! Extending that theme through the shard cycle...     (with Encore, Enchanters, Monger, and Unfinished available to all colors and factions) I think you're wrong that RGW is too "wild" for monger to fit; I whipped up these three as concepts:    An idea for an Enchanter for this shard, and accompanying tokens:            
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 07:32
|
|
|
I think with that sort of setup, the abilities are put in color pairs so even if the shards are thematically linked, it will still feel like a 2 color pair set. I have been looking at the abilities that got the most votes and trying to organize things and here is what I have: These are the abilities that saw the most votes: Galvanize/Momentum (Make spells cheaper when you attack) Husk (Create a token of the creature with no abilities) Bloodrite (Triggers off sacrifices, but isn't an inherent sacrifice ability.) Enchanters (Create enchantment tokens) Encore (Gain bonus if you've cast other spells.) Mirror (Bonus for controlling multiple perms. with the same name) Monger (Opponent can activate card abilities, but you gain Silver) Twin (Create a token copy on ETB) Unfinished (Haunt variant) RGW - This seems like the right spot for Galvanize/Momentum. It is definitely a Green Red ability, and white can play a supporting role. GWU - I like Enchanters in this spot. This combination has seen enchantment focus before, and it also likes tokens. WUB - I am not strong on this, but I like Encore here. Each of these colors can have small effect cards that you can cast first to power up your follow up spells. I could also see Twin fitting here, maybe with effects that work like the Mirror bonus. UBR - For this color combination I really like the Haunt variant. It can be flavored like a revenge curse, some leftover rot, or even a lasting burn. BRG - Husk would work with these colors, especially with abilities that can be activated from the graveyard. I wouldn't want to see it in the same set as Twin though, as that is a lot of overlapping space with specifically named tokens. I could also see Bloodrite here, but I think it might feel too similar to original Jund.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 08:45
|
|
|
I very much appreciate you guys and I値l come up with some ideas tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 09:59
|
|
|
I'm looking at a split like the wedge one I made before but using shards this time, I didn't think about this until I read the last few posts, but I'm envisioning a set of strategies that come from assigning each shard a keyword, but that the actual keywords don't show up so much. So in each shard there is a subset of cards that will work for that shard's strategy. Because individual colors fit into 3 shards, monocolored cards will use the keywords different ways to feed into the different shard strategies. Sort of like how unearth helped to support devour, or how exalted helped to support big naya monsters. Here is my split of broad keywords/strategies: Bant: Encore -- lots of combat tricks leading into creatures with encore to cast in the second main phase, flash creatures, evasion Naya: Momentum/Galvanize -- big beaters+ramp Grixis: Bloodrite -- death triggers+sac outlets Jund: Husk -- crappy husks early game building to good regular cast guys late game, reanimation/aftermath effects Esper: Enchanters -- defensive enchantment tokens, "equal to the number of enchantments you control" effects How each of these keywords appears in monocolored cards: White Encore-flash protection creatures/spells, blink+etb creatures would work well here also Momentum-small, weak creatures with momentum, strive/X spell combat tricks as pay off Enchanters-minor protective auras, more expensive removal Blue Enchanters-etb value enchantments (scry/draw cards, etc) regular blue effects tied to number of enchantments controlled Encore-sacrifice at end of turn token makers, unblockable/return to hand combat tricks, exile cards from graveyard for effect (also ties in with bloodrite) Bloodrite- illusions with the sacrifice clause Black Bloodrite- basic implementation, death triggers Husk-reanimation after husk, "whenever a token creature dies" Enchanters- enchantments that require sacrifice to work, but have no on the battlefield effect, legendary enchantments Red Husk- basic implementation (haste/etbs are especially important), ball-lightning type guys Momentum- I would want bigger creatures but the argument could be made for smaller ones, especially high power/low toughness, definitely a few with haste, x spell pay offs Bloodrite- ball lightnings, flings Green Momentum- midrange beaters with the ability, big generic cost guys/hydras as payoff Husk- switch colored/generic mana between husk costs so one half is easy to momentum out, exile from graveyard effects on husk creatures Encore- basic green combat tricks, definitely a fog variant, mana ramp that works if you have already cast a spell Overall, I think momentum is the one to be most careful with (cheating on mana having the history that it does). Easy ways to keep it from dominating are keeping momentum guys low toughness, limiting the rate momentum appears on cards, and making sure that cards have heavy colored mana requirements in momentum colors. I am thinking that if we're looking to have keywords cross-pollinate into different strategies, then there's a change I would want to make Enchanters. If making an enchantment token counts as casting a spell it works better with momentum and encore. Does "cast an enchantment token" make sense? I had this typed up before I read lack of bear's post. I think unfinished could work better in either bant or esper than what I have here. Putting encore in bant is the choice I'm least sure about and I think shuffling unfinished into the mix might work better. I'll get some example cards worked out later today or tomorrow. Let me know if this split sounds off, I think parts of it work well, but for some of these (blue enchanters, red bloodrite, and green encore especially) I'm filling in blanks and hoping someone else has a better idea for how to execute my poorly thought out idea or can replace it with a better idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 10:32
|
|
|
Needs to be 'another target creature' or it gets arbitrarily large. This set is shaping up to be very complex and token-heavy. That's not a dealbreaker, it's an interesting angle to pursue. Monger and Twin is a cute pairing.   
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 11:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:04 |
|
|
Anshu posted:I think you're wrong that RGW is too "wild" for monger to fit; I whipped up these three as concepts: These are neat (though costed a bit wonky) but I want to bring up that monger cards necessarily need to have costs other than tapping. This is because activating an ability that taps the card essentially guarantees that the card's owner will activate the ability on their upkeep with priority, since failing to do so means that another player will get to activate that ability to keep that card tapped essentially forever. It gets weirder if you have two monger cards, as you'll activate one on your upkeep only to have the next player in the turn order activate the next one in response. I want to take this time to give sort of a Monger Primer. Fortunately for us there are a few ways to keep non-tap abilities from getting out of control. A few examples*:   These two cards have built in self-destructs.   These cards force you to pay additional costs and essentially handle it sort of like spellshapers. I like the discard idea a lot more than the sacrifice feature, but both are valid.  Flailing manticore here can be boosted by anyone, but can also be killed by anyone, making boosting it a sort of arms race. This method is fun mostly because it forces people to spend huge amounts of mana in order to deal such as 3 damage. On my own monger cards, I liked to use hybrid mana for the costs (specifically the 2/color variant), mostly because I wanted anyone to be able to activate the abilities even if they weren't playing those colors, but again, that's sort of a personal thing. *None of these examples are what people consider "good" cards, and when people make their own monger cards I recommend costing them and their effects a little more aggressively.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 18:18
|
|